Collective bargaining, as was only to be expected, has felt the impact of the major changes affecting the world

over the past 25 years: the general acceptance of the market economy following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the debate on the role and structure of the State, economic restructuring and globalization, the ready availability of efficient ways of fighting inflation, the growth of non-standard forms of work and temporary contracts, the ongoing process of political and social democratization, the growing autonomy of trade unions from political parties, and many other factors too numerous to mention. All these factors have had a varied and significant impact on collective bargaining.

The increasingly harsh competition brought about by technological innovation and globalization has led to a reduction in the influence exercised in many countries by sectoral agreements and has given added importance to collective bargaining at the enterprise level (and at lower levels, such as the work unit, the factory or the workplace), strictly taking into account the criteria of productivity and output. Flexibilization and deregulation of work have thus encouraged the growth of collective bargaining at enterprise level.

The ILO has carried out an enormous amount of standard-setting work during the 80 years of its existence as it has sought to promote social justice, and one of its chief tasks has been to advance collective bargaining throughout the world. This task was already laid down in the Declaration of Philadelphia, 1944, part of the ILO Constitution, which stated the solemn obligation of the International Labour Organization to further among the nations of the world programmes which will achieve ... the effective recognition of the right of collective bargaining

More recently, in June 1998, the ILO took another step forward by adopting the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up. These principles include the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, along with freedom of association and the elimination of forced or compulsory labour, the effective abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation.

The framework within which collective bargaining must take place if it is to be viable and effective is based on the principle of the independence and autonomy of the parties and the free and voluntary nature of the negotiations; it requires the minimum possible level of interference by the public authorities in bipartite negotiations and gives primacy to employers and their organizations and workers organizations as the parties to the bargaining. The ILO has also encouraged tripartite national agreements which are similar to those reached within the Organization by representatives of workers, employers and governments.

In the ILOs instruments, collective bargaining is deemed to be the activity or process leading up to the conclusion of a collective agreement. In Recommendation No. 91, Paragraph 2, collective agreements are defined as: All agreements in writing regarding working conditions and terms of employ-ment concluded between an employer, a group of employers or one or more employers organisations, on the one hand, and one or more representative workers organisations, or, in the absence of such organisations, the representatives of the workers duly elected and authorised by them in accordance with national laws and regulations, on the other (ILO, 1996b, p. 656).

Convention No. 98 does not contain a definition of collective agreements, but outlines their fundamental aspects in Article 4: Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken ... to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers organisations and workers organisations with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements (ILO, 1996b, p. 640).

ILO instruments clearly permit collective bargaining only with representatives of the workers concerned if there are no workers organizations in the area in question (enterprise level or higher). In Convention No. 135, which provides in Article 5 that the existence of elected representatives is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions concerned or their representatives

The Committee on Freedom of Association maintained in one case that direct settlements signed between an employer and a group of non-unionized workers, even when a union exists in the undertaking, does not promote collective bargaining as set out in Article 4 of Convention No. 98 (ILO, 1996a, para. 790).

It is important to emphasize that, for workers organizations to be able to fulfil their purpose of furthering and defending the interests of workers through collective bargaining, they have to be independent and must be able to organize their activities without any interference by the public authorities which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof (Convention No. 87, Articles 3 and 10, ILO, 1996b, pp. 528-529).

Depending on the individual system of collective bargaining, that trade union organizations which participate in collective bargaining may represent only their own members or all the workers in the negotiating unit concerned. In this latter case, where a trade union (or, as appropriate, trade unions) represents the majority of the workers, or a high percentage established by law which does not imply such a majority, in many countries it enjoys the right to be the exclusive bargaining agent on behalf of all the workers in the bargaining unit.

The position of the Committee of Experts is that both systems are compatible with the Convention . The Committee on Freedom of Association has upheld principles and decisions along the same lines as the Committee of Experts (ILO, 1996a, paras. 831842), and has justified that decisions concerning the most representative union should be made by virtue of objective and pre-established criteria so as to avoid any opportunities for partiality or abuse (ibid., para. 827).

The Committee could not allow the exclusion from the terms of the Convention of large categories of workers employed by the State merely on the grounds that they are formally placed on the same footing as public officials engaged in the administration of the State. The distinction must therefore be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, in some countries, civil servants employed in government ministries and other comparable bodies, as well as ancillary staff) who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the

Conventions No. 98, No. 151 and No. 154 and Recommendation No. 91 focus the content of collective bargaining on terms and conditions of work and employment and on the regulation of the relations between employers and workers and between organizations of employers and of workers. With the modern tendency in industrialized countries to recognize managerial collective bargaining concerning procedures to resolve problems, such as staff reductions, changes in working hours and other matters which go beyond terms of employment in their strict sense.

Nevertheless, although the range of subjects which can be negotiated and their content is very broad, they are not absolute and need to be clearly related to conditions of work and employment or, in other words, matters which are primarily or essentially questions relating to conditions of employment (ILO, 1996a, para. 812).

The principle of free and voluntary negotiation Free choice of bargaining level The principle of good faith

The role of machinery to facilitate negotiations Compulsory arbitration

Drafting and registration of collective agreements Interference in the application of collective agreements in force Restrictions on future negotiations

The exercise of the right of freedom of association by organizations of public officials and employees is now a reality in industrialized countries and in many developing countries. Convention No. 98, adopted in 1949, excluded from its scope public servants engaged in the administration of the State, but Convention No. 151, adopted in 1978, took an important step forward in requiring States to promote machinery for negotiation or such other methods as allow representatives of public employees to participate in the determination of their terms and conditions of employment

A few years later, in 1981, came the adoption of Convention No. 154, which promotes collective bargaining in both the private sector and the public service

Collective bargaining in the public service raises specific problems. On the one hand, there are often one or more national conditions of service designed to achieve uniformity, which are in general approved by Parliament, and which often contain exhaustive regulations covering the rights, duties and conditions of public servants, thereby prohibiting or leaving little room for negotiation. On the other hand, the remuneration of public servants has financial implications which have to be reflected in public budgets, which are approved by such bodies as parliaments and municipalities, etc

According to Conventions No. 151 and No. 154, it is admissible for special modalities of application to be fixed for collective bargaining in the public service.

Legislative provisions which allow Parliament or the competent budgetary authority to set upper and lower limits for wage negotiations or to establish an overall budgetary package within which the parties may negotiate monetary or standard-setting clauses or those which give the financial authorities the right to participate in collective bargaining alongside the direct employer are compatible with the Convention, provided they leave a significant role to collective bargaining. It is essential, however, that workers and their organizations be able to participate fully and meaningfully in designing this overall bargaining framework, which implies in particular that they must have access to all the financial, budgetary and other data enabling them to assess the situation on the basis of the facts.

Committee on Freedom of Association (ILO, 1996a, para. 899), which has also emphasized that the reservation of should not have the effect of preventing compliance with collective agreements entered into by, or on behalf of, that authority

budgetary powers to the legislative authority

In so far as the income of public enterprises and bodies depends on state budgets, it would not be objectionable after wide discussion and consultation between the concerned employers and employees organizations in a system having the confidence of the parties for wage ceilings to be fixed in state budgetary laws, and neither would it be a matter for criticism that the Ministry of Finance prepare a report prior to the commencement of collective bargaining with a view to ensuring respect of such ceilings.

Before such ceilings are established, both the employers and the public sector trade union organizations should be consulted and be able to express their points of view to the authority responsible for assessing the financial consequences of draft collective agreements.

On the subject of the provisions of collective agreements relating to remu-neration and conditions of employment which have financial implications, one of the fundamental principles mentioned above is that collective agreements must be respected by the legislative and administrative authorities. This principle is compatible with the various budgetary systems, provided that they meet certain conditions and, in particular, can accommodate, on the one hand, systems in which collective agreements resulting from negotiation are concluded before the budgetary debate (provided that the budgets in practice respect the content of the agreements) and, on the other hand, systems in which the agreements are con-cluded after the budget, provided they are sufficiently flexible.

Finally, the flexibility permitted by Convention No. 154 means that, when negotiation covers terms and conditions of employment which involve changes in the legislation respecting administrative careers or the conditions of service of public employees, its results can take the form of a commitment by the government authorities to submit draft legislation to parliament to amend the above texts along the lines of the negotiations